MI5 had a duty to work with overseas agencies to counter 'imminent' al-Qaida threat, says Jonathan Evans
Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk,
Friday 16 October 2009
The director-general, Jonathan Evans, said MI5 needed overseas help in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks by al-Qaida. Photograph: PA
The head of MI5 has issued a vigorous defence of the organisation's co-operation with intelligence agencies known to use torture, saying that it thwarted many terrorist attacks after 9/11 and saved British lives.
Speaking publicly for the first time about the mounting concern over British involvement in the torture of terrorism suspects overseas, Jonathan Evans, the director-general of the security service, said the country had quickly needed help to understand the nature of the threat from al-Qaida at a time when another attack could have been imminent.
"In my view we would have been derelict in our duty if we had not worked, circumspectly, with overseas liaisons who were in a position to provide intelligence that could safeguard this country from attack," he said.
Speaking at his old university, Bristol, last night, Evans said he did not defend "the abuses that have recently come to light within the US system since 9/11". He said working with the intelligence agencies of other countries that he did not identify had posed "a real dilemma" for MI5 officers working in difficult and at times dangerous circumstances.
"Given the pressing need to understand and uncover al-Qaida's plans, were we to deal, however circumspectly, with those security services who had experience of working against al-Qaida on their own territory? Or were we to refuse to deal with them, accepting that in so doing we would be cutting off a potentially vital source of information that would prevent attacks in the west?"
Evans defended the current system of oversight of MI5 and the other main intelligence agencies, MI6 and GCHQ, by ministers, retired judges and a committee of MPs and peers, the intelligence and security committee (ISC).
This year, parliament's joint committee on human rights (JCHR) condemned the current arrangements, saying MI5 was "woefully" unaccountable and there needed to be an independent inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture.
Evans insisted: "It would be self-defeating to have such onerous and detailed scrutiny that the operational effectiveness and responsiveness of the service was seriously impaired. Equally, accountability must be sufficiently robust to ensure that any inappropriate action on the part of the service comes to light."
He pledged that MI5 would not conceal any relevant information from the courts that are due to consider claims being brought against the security service and the Home Office by a number of victims of alleged torture.
His speech did not address charges that once a policy had been devised that allowed MI5 and MI6 officers to interrogate detainees whom they knew were being tortured by others, that same policy was used to facilitate torture.
In January 2002, according to a report by the ISC, MI5 and MI6 officers interrogating detainees in Afghanistan were told they did not need to intervene to prevent those prisoners from being abused by the US military.
"Given that they are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this," the officers were told. A number of international law experts have since questioned the legality of this advice.
This policy was then employed in other countries. In May 2002 in Pakistan, for example, an MI5 officer interrogated Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, despite knowing he was being tortured.
That matter is now the subject of a Scotland Yard investigation. According to the authorised history of MI5 published earlier this month, "this appears to be the first time in the history of the Security Service that its actions have been the subject of a criminal investigation". The actions of an MI6 officer are also being investigated by police.
By 2004, MI5 was asking a notorious Pakistani intelligence agency to detain British terrorism suspects, and then providing lists of questions – a practice that the JCHR and a United Nations special rapporteur on human rights have since denounced as amounting to complicity in torture.
Two years later, police in Manchester decided against arresting Rangzieb Ahmed, a terrorist who was about to leave the country for Pakistan, despite having gathered evidence against him that was later used in court. Instead, they tipped off the Pakistani authorities that Ahmed was on his way. MI6 then suggested that Pakistani intelligence officers detain him, and MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up a list of questions they wanted him to be asked. By the time Ahmed was deported to the UK 13 months later, three of his fingernails were missing.
When Ahmed appeared in court, attempts were made to conceal what had happened through the use of in-camera evidence, and a Guardian reporter covering the hearing was threatened with arrest for contempt of court.
Details were eventually made public by David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Davis told the Commons: "I cannot imagine a more obvious case of the outsourcing of torture."
The Guardian has established that Tony Blair, when prime minister in 2004, was aware of the existence of the guidance given to intelligence officers two years earlier.
What he knew of its consequences is less clear. The Guardian has repeatedly asked him about any role he played in approving the policy, whether he knew that it led to people being tortured, whether he personally authorised interrogations that took place in Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, and whether he made any effort to change the policy. Blair's spokesman responded by saying: "It is completely untrue that Mr Blair has ever authorised the use of torture. He is opposed to it in all circumstances. Neither has he ever been complicit in the use of torture."
When the Guardian pointed out to Blair that it had not suggested that he had authorised the use of torture – as opposed to asking him whether he had authorised a policy that led to people being tortured – and that his spokesman had not answered the questions that were asked, his spokesman replied: "Tony Blair does not condone torture, has never authorised it nor colluded in it. He continues to think our security services have done and continue to do a crucial and very good job."
In March, Gordon Brown announced that the policy was to be rewritten and then made public. It remains unclear when this might happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment